memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha talk:Pages for deletion
New format Okay, I have just one comment on the new format that I think is inferior to the old format: the subpage for each deletion discussion. It was so much easier before to vote by hitting "edit this page" and scroll through everything, now you have to access and read each page individually, which seems somewhat inefficient to me. --Alan del Beccio 05:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC) :Also, the page claims icons appear on pages that haven't been commented on in 5 or more days. It seems to be more like 1 day... --From Andoria with Love 16:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC) ::Icons show up for all discussions at the moment - but I'm not sure if icons generally show up in all browsers (might be a CSS-related issue that prevents them to show up in some). It might be best to just remove that note - admins should know what to do anyway... -- Cid Highwind 17:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC) User Page for Deletion Greetings all. This is unusual, but I feel that the user page User:OlegMosin should be deleted. It appears to have been created as an upload site for a research paper having absolutely nothing to do with Memory Alpha. The user has not contributed, in any way, to MA, and this clearly violates the core policy what Memory Alpha is not, i.e. using a user page as a storage space for non-MA material. Should I propose this user page for deletion in the ordinary fashion? I have yet to see any one put a deletion notice on someone else's user page nor do I think this is normally allowed. But in this case, it should be. -FC 05:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC) :I wonder if it could simply be reverted as a violation of the policy. Either way, though, I support listing it for a deletion discussion.--31dot 09:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC) I have nominated the page for speedy deletion as it is clearly someone uploading unrelated content and using Memory Alpha as a storage space. -FC 20:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC) ::Don't forget that in addition to putting on the template, you need to actually list it at Memory Alpha:Pages for immediate deletion, preferably listing which criteria for speedy deletion listed on the page it qualifies for. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Thanks for pointing that out. I just did but I see someone beat me to it! :-) -FC 21:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Pages for Immediate deletion Message Is there anychance we can get a boilerplate message for articles and images for immediate deletion? Posting a typical won't link you to this page in the cases when something needs to be deleted immediately. --Gvsualan 05:06, 8 May 2005 (UTC) Question about immediate deletions Moved from User talk:Captainmike: :Hey, quick question. I noticed you deleted USS Dauntless (NCC-71879) citing that it was an immediate delete because it was fan fiction or something to that extent. What I am confused about is why other fan fiction pages, like Phaser-Type II-G, remain(ed) in the votes for deletion page and were not immediately deleted in the same manner? What makes these two articles different, or rather, where exactly is this fine line drawn for immediate deletions when both of these pages seem to fall into the same category? Thanks:)--Alan del Beccio 22:00, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC) ::To be exact, "non-canon" content is not a candidate for immediate deletion... -- Cid Highwind 22:19, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC) : Well, either way, they both were "non-canon", yet what makes one different from the other? --Alan del Beccio 22:58, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC) :::Well, I guess I was wrong to phrase it as "speedy deletion" in the deletion field summary -- it was qualified for deletion for being non-canon and having been listed two days. I apologixe for the confusion, and the fact that I haven't had a chance to answer since this was left on my talk a few days ago i guess, but I was referring to a section of : ;Deleting Invalid Articles :''If you believe an article contains nothing but non-canon information, or is sourced solely from non-valid resources, they should be listed on Memory Alpha:Votes for deletion. They may be deleted two days after they have been listed. In this time, other users may defend the article's validity. :::I had thought that two days had passed, although it might have been less, but I figured the time the article spent on ''this deletion page might qualify us to be done with it. My concern was that it was a totally non-canon thing to begin with, and not applicable for merging into a games article due to copyvio. It might have been preferable to leave it on the second deletion page for another two days, but i guess i woke up impatient that day :P-- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 16:18, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC) Banned users criterion I know it's there to reinforce the point about vandals, but doesn't this fall under the catch-all of "pure vandalism"? If a banned user hypothetically created a legitimate article upon returning, it wouldn't qualify as a speedy delete. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 05:48, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC) :Most cases will probably be "pure vandalism", but what about a user that keeps posting copyvios or fan fiction until that gets him banned? Without that additional rule, we'd still have to list each and every one of those on the appropriate pages, or alternatively, each time explain why "this contribution is considered vandalism". I think the rule makes sense, although it might be one of the least-used... -- Cid Highwind 11:56, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC) Overhaul I suggest this page be more or less replaced with a list, either/both here or/and located on the recent changes page, since speedy deletions don't require discussion and should be self evident to administrators. In more than one case pages listed here have remained long after they were deleted or the notice itself was added after the page was deleted because writing down the page and why simply down took longer than deleting it. - 18:38, September 8, 2013 (UTC) :I think the best idea would be an automatic list filled with all pages that use the template. --Cid Highwind (talk) 19:09, September 8, 2013 (UTC) Exactly what I was thinking. - 19:20, September 8, 2013 (UTC) I've added a list to and the recent changes. I don't think we need this on a separate page from the list of deletion discussions anymore if it's just a list as well, so I think we should merge there. - 16:56, September 14, 2013 (UTC)